Nevarez v. Hunt
288 F.R.D. 270
W.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Nevarez, a former inmate, filed a pro se civil rights action while in custody, alleging denial of access to the Groveland law library and religious services, among other rights violations.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 37 for Nevarez's failure to appear for a video deposition noticed for August 28, 2012.
- Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions are available for failure to comply with discovery orders; dismissal is a harsh remedy and requires an order and evidence of willfulness or fault.
- The court declined to dismiss but sanctioned Nevarez, concluding his nonappearance was not entirely excusable and awarding costs to be determined.
- A Scheduling Order warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions, and lesser sanctions were considered appropriate before permanent dismissal.
- The court finalizes the decision by denying dismissal, ordering cost documentation from defense counsel, and allowing Nevarez to respond to that submission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Rule 37 is warranted | Nevarez failed to attend cannot justify dismissal due to merit of claims | Failure to appear - a sanction up to dismissal is warranted | Dismissal not warranted; sanctions other than dismissal imposed |
| Whether lesser sanctions are appropriate | Costs and other sanctions are excessive given circumstances | Lesser sanctions permitted and appropriate under Rule 37 | Costs to be assessed; lesser sanctions deemed appropriate |
| Whether the record supports imposing costs for nonappearance | No genuine fault; medical issue should excuse nonappearance | Nonappearance caused by plaintiff; costs may be imposed | Costs are appropriate but amount to be determined by further documentation |
Key Cases Cited
- Salahuddin v. Harris, 782 F.2d 1127 (2d Cir.1986) (sanctions available under Rule 37; dismissal is a harsh remedy)
- Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 916 F.2d 759 (2d Cir.1990) (dismissal for discovery abuses requires willfulness, bad faith, or fault)
- Israel Aircraft Indus., Ltd. v. Standard Precision, 559 F.2d 203 (2d Cir.1977) (requires a court order in effect before sanctions; dismissal without order improper)
- Valentine v. Museum of Modern Art, 29 F.3d 47 (2d Cir.1994) (recommendation to consider lesser sanctions; warning that noncompliance can lead to sanctions)
- Robertson v. Dowbenko, 443 Fed.Appx. 659 (2d Cir.2011) (preference for merits decision; case-specific application)